Fwd: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice Version Mismatch/Conflict

[Andras Timar]

Hi Petr,

2012/4/2 Petr Mladek <pmladek at suse.cz>:
>> As far as I remember, I introduced the VERSIONMICRO variable before
>> 3.5 feature freeze, and it is used only in File Version field of
>> Windows executables. The same is true for VERSIONMAJOR and
>> VERSIONMINOR. It is safe to bump them, when necessary.
>
> Good to know. I do not remember any mail about this new variable. :-)
> Why was it introduced and how is it supposed to be used?
>

In order to fully utilize Windows installer capabilities, files should
be versioned properly. We have not reached this goal yet with 3.5, but
we are closer. In 3.4 and earlier versions file versioning was messy.
This was resolved by
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=3fbedc3e8f65c91999dcee42daa8312e387dcf40
Currently VERSIONMICRO is used only in the VersionInfo resource of
executables under Windows.

>>
>> Now, for the 3.5.3 it would solve the inconsistencies, if you bumped
>> VERSIONMICRO from minor.mk to 3, and if you displayed 3.5.3.buildid in
>> About box. That way file versions on Windows, About box version and
>> MSI version would be the same.
>
> The question is what number we want to use for the buildid.
>
> In the past, the windows installer used 3.5 version and we needed to use
> the micro version in the buildid. We used the following scheme
> to make it predictable:
>
>      bugfixrelease micro + 0 + rcnumber
>
> , so we get:
>
>      buildid 101 for 3.5.1-rc1
>      buildid 102 for 3.5.1-rc2
>      buildid 201 for 3.5.1-rc1
>
> If we use what you suggest, we will get in the about dialog:
>
>      3.5.1.101 for 3.5.1-rc1
>      3.5.1.102 for 3.5.1-rc2
>      3.5.2.201 for 3.5.2-rc1
>
> IMHO, it is ugly because the micro version is there twice.
>
> How the windows installer distinguish the build version these days? Does
> it use the VERSIONMAJOR+VERSIONMINOR+VERSIONMICRO? Could we restart
> buildid for each bugfix release and get the following?
>
>        buildid 1 for rc1
>        buildid 2 for rc2
>
> The we could have in the about dialog what we use now:
>
>      3.5.1.1 for 3.5.1-rc1
>      3.5.1.2 for 3.5.1-rc2
>      3.5.2.1 for 3.5.2-rc1

I fully agree with this versioning scheme. 3.5.3.1 will be higher than
3.5.2.202, so upgrade will happen. Note, that we cannot do this for a
hypothetical 3.5.2 rc3, because 3.5.2.3 would be lower than 3.5.2.202.

Best regards,
Andras